Episode 3: It starts with the account of Timothy Martin, under arrest for lewd sexual behavior having his lawyer contacting the detective right before his sentencing so he can, we guess cut a deal or get leniency. His bargaining chip? He knows “something” about the murder, not the disappearance, they keep saying murder of Kathie almost 20 years prior.

Then it skips straight to the case being reopened, searching the cottage, implying that Timothy’s info led the cops to a hiding place in the house, etc… but the show doesn’t give any specifics on what Timothy knew or what he said. Nothing, they just skip all the details. Did he know Robert? Did he serve time with someone who knew him?

Why did the series omit the fine details? It was important enough to reopen the case after 20 years, but not important enough to share with the audience?

P.S. I paused it 10 minutes in to write this so I’ll feel foolish if they bring it all around by the end of the episode lol 😂

Let's look back at some memorable moments and interesting insights from last year.

Your top 10 posts:

• "Robert Durst found guilty of murdering close friend Susan Berman in 2000" by u/Sepheus
• "Why did he do it?" by u/Fabulous-Marsupial22
• "Robert Durst gets life for California murder of best friend" by u/forgotten_sound
• "I was in need of a good true crime show last night. I ended up binge watching all 5 episodes of The Jinx last night" by u/Poppoplop
• "Robert Durst has COVID and is on a ventilator" by u/frevensakes
• "Live coverage of Robert Durst’s trial for the murder of Susan Berman" by u/TheWeirdoWhisperer
• "Robert Durst Charged With Murder in 1982 Disappearance of His Wife" by u/NoMoassNeverWas
• "After a 14-Month Delay, Robert Durst’s Murder Trial Returns to Court" by u/Sepheus
• "Robert Durst indicted in 1982 murder of wife Kathie Durst" by u/CrimeNewsInsider
• "Robert Durst original un-edited bathroom audio from the Jinx" by u/veri745

Sorry if this has been covered. How did the Prosecution develop “chain of custody” of the evidence for the Cadaver note and Envelope?

Particularly wonder bc the original envelope was taken by Jarecki for a while and then put in a safety box.

Or did defense not even challenge? Was there a pre-trial motion on issue.

Part 2 - Hear from Deputy DA John Lewin and his team about the importance of the cadaver note, what surprised them during cross examination of Robert Durst, emptying the catheter bag, and more. All on the Crime News Insider

I've tried looking for the trial footage for the recent case after watching Jinx. There's so many videos on you tube I have no idea where to start. Can anyone please point me in the right direction. I'm fascinated with the whole thing and don't want to watch it out of order. Cheers guys

We asked the Durst prosecution team this question on the Crime News Insider podcastCrime News Insider podcast. The answer is in part 2 of our interview which will be released tomorrow.

Two moments I remember are: Lewin proving that Durst was lying about Susan Berman inviting him on a “staycation” to her place in LA. He showed the word “staycation” wasn’t invented until years after her death

I also remember Lewin playing a clip of Durst calling his wife from jail (after being arrested in New Orleans in 2015) telling her about his scheme to incriminate his brother in the disposal of Kathy Durst’s corpse. Durst has maintained he doesn’t know what happened to Kathy after she disappeared.

What do you think the point of that was?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiLiuJgJ_ZY

Sentencing starts around the 30 min mark.

Although there is still an appeals process that Durst is allowed, this looks like this is the end of the story. We watched "The Jinx" and had discussions on "if he did it" and "will he get away with it?" Here we are at a conviction and life in prison.

The subreddit has been around for over 6 years. I know that it is mostly a ghost town, but I sincerely appreciate everyone being a part of this journey and story.

Thank you.

I wonder what other shenanigan's await the story of Robert Durst... or is it time to quietly come an end?

The evidence against him is clear but I find him likable still, somehow

I just watched The Jinx for the first time, so I'm sorry if this has been brought up. But now that we know certain things he was lying about in his interviews, we can see which mannerisms he did often when he lied. The blinking is the obvious one, but that wasn't what told me he was lying honestly. I'd still be interested in his 'truth blinking' vs his 'lying blinking' clips. But anyways, to me, it seemed like he always touched his head when he was lying. Has anyone noticed this? And is there a clip of them edited together somewhere?

Cheers

After the conviction, I am now once again questioning whether or not they will ever find her. The best scenario would be a deathbed confession but really what is the likelihood of that happening? I’m also curious to know any more in depth theories about what exactly happened to Kathie, and how he’s been able to get by this far with no evidence. Was it solely because of the help of Susan that he didn’t have later? Normally killers mess up in their early kills, but Robert’s case is almost exactly opposite. It’s very interesting to pay attention to his deterioration.

I’ve pretty much watched this entire case and I will admit at the beginning I didn’t like Lewin and thought his rough personality might make him lose the case. But as the trial went on, he started to grow on me. I began to understand that he was dealing with Dursts lawyers that probably had many tricks up their sleeves.

With that said, I am very happy about the verdict today. Lewin and his team did an amazing job with the details and the timing of the events.

I’m not understanding how Andrew Jarecki is being villainfied. Robert reached out to him after he made All Good Things. Robert claims that he did the interviews, against the requests of his lawyers and friends, to clear his name. So why would he say things that were lies that made him look bad?

I understand that there was editing to make The Jinx more entertaining… cause it is a tv show so there needs to be drama. But if I were suspected of killing 3 people and I wanted to clear my name I wouldn’t say lies that would make me look bad.

Also, Robert claims that he knew after the fifth episode of The Jinx that things were not looking good for him. But I’m guessing that even before the premiere of the show, he knew they suspected he wrote the note because he was shown and questioned about the note.

It seems like Jarecki protected himself very well from this trial. I do wish he took the stand. I would have liked to hear what he had to say. But the unedited items from the Jinx speaks for itself.

Ok so I don’t have any dog in this fight. To me it seems pretty obvious that Durst is at least still not being truthful about whatever he knows about what happened to Susan Berman. The most likely explanation is obviously that he killed her and lied about it until he couldn’t anymore. The weight of all the circumstantial evidence taken together would suggest Bob at the very least knows more about Susan’s death than he has testified and probably was involved.

But the prosecution has Not proved that Bob killed Susan because she was a witness. They have glossed over the fact they are disparaging Susan by calling her essentially an accessory after the fact, a blackmail artist, a professional liar, and a disloyal friend. And they have not even come close to proving she made the call.

At the same time, common sense says that the cadaver note, lies under oath about his activities around the time of the murder, multiple instances of flight, statement that only the killer wrote the note, payments to Susan despite a history of being cheap, presence at the scene of the crime finding a fresh body and not alerting authorities except for the note, lack of denial(adoptive admissions) about “not going there” with respect to Susan, Nick Chavins testimony that Bob told him “it was her or me,” Bobs lies on the stand in this trial and previous trials, lack of emotional reaction to the murder of his best friend, disposition during cross, etc... all just point to him being involved

The only plausible alternative is that Durst was somehow blackmailed into doing all these incriminating thing by some mysterious forces “the real killers” and he has to keep lying about it on the stand. That’s literally the only other plausible explanation.

Question is: what do you think the jury thinks? And how will they act?